Journal of Open Innovation:

Technology, Market, and Complexity

Article
Problem-Solving Design-Platform Model Based on
the Methodological Distinctiveness of Service Design
Youngok Jeon
Head office/Korean Society of Design Science, Bundang-gu 13496, Korea; [email protected]




Received: 5 September 2019; Accepted: 27 September 2019; Published: 5 October 2019


Abstract: This study explores the differentiated properties of service design in the context of
the final value pursued by this methodology, avoiding the interpretation of pending issues to
which service design is applied. First, the following were identified as the core properties of
service design, differentiated from other design methodologies: “Design Thinking”, a creative
problem-solving process; “User Experience Value”, the pursued goal; “Participatory Design”,
a practical research methodology; and “Interaction between Users and Providers”, the core research
scope of pending issues. Second, the study proposed a six-step service design process model based on
the interrelationships between these properties. The “problem recognition” step identified a decline
in the quality of user experiences and forms a self-awareness of dissatisfaction. Next, the “problem
understanding” step conducts multidisciplinary cooperative research on dissatisfaction. Subsequently,
the “problem deduction” step determines users’ unsatisfied desires through visualization of the
core pending issues, and the “problem definition” step performs creative conception activities with
problem-solving approaches for the unsatisfied desires. Further, the “problem-solving” step develops
service design models, and finally, the “problem-solving strategy check” step confirms the utility of
the models in a real-world application.

Keywords: design thinking; interaction between users and providers; participatory design; service
design; user experience value

Key Contribution: Relevance to Design Practice—There is a lack of well-established and uniform

criteria to define service design. Although previous studies have found it difficult to develop such
criteria, our study can help address this lack by determining the distinctiveness of service design.

1. Introduction
Service design has been attracting increasing attention in recent years as a practical strategy for
developing human-centered solutions for contemporary issues that cannot be resolved by pre-existing
norms and systems; such issues are found in a wide range of social domains, including urban
environments, public services, and medical care. The concept and methodology of service design were
validated in the 1990s, and in the 2010s, the process model began to be actively developed by the design
industry and academia; however, there is as yet no consensus on a clear definition or scope of service
design. According to reports by Mandano Partnership [1] and by the Service Design Research Network
in 2013 and 2014 [2], most agendas handled by service design are “wicked problems” [3], which refer to
atypical and invisible problems generated as a result of complicated relationships between stakeholders.
However, the establishment of clear criteria to define the essential properties and process of this
methodology is hampered by the mixed-use of diverse research tools for approaching such problems,
changeable processes that depend on circumstances, and difficulties in standardizing performances.
Considering this, the present study primarily aims to identify the methodological distinctiveness of this
concept by analyzing service design in comparison with pre-existing problem-solving methodologies.

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78; doi:10.3390/joitmc5040078 www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 2 of 15

To this end, this paper avoids making overt interpretations of this methodology and identifies its
distinctive properties in the context of end-goal-oriented value. On the basis of this distinctiveness,
this study ultimately aims to propose a service design platform that could function as an effective
solution for problems, as well as “an activity to improve service” [4].
This study is carried out as follows. First, the study begins with a discussion of the importance of
the study topic, and a definition of the key areas. Second, a review of previous studies establishes
a theoretical framework; in particular, we investigate the broad and narrow definitions of service
and compare service design with other problem-solving methodologies. Specifically, this study
explores the following key questions: (1) How does service design differ from other provider-centered
methodologies that focus on the improvement of service productivity and efficiency? (2) How does
service design address problems?, and (3) What is the ultimate goal of service design? Third, on the
basis of the above analysis, this study determines the distinctive nature of service design methodology.
Finally, the study proposes a service design platform that could solve wicked problems and improve
user experience value. It also presents suggestions for feasible follow-up studies on this topic.

2. Theoretical Review

2.1. Service and Service-Dominant Logic

The dictionary definition of “service” is “the action of helping or doing work for someone” [5].
In the 20th century, when the goods-dominant logic based on the economy of manufacturing-centered
industry was prevalent, the production of goods was believed to be an essential economic activity
that contributed to increasing national economic power, and the goods themselves were considered to
bring satisfaction to customers [6–9]; meanwhile, at this time, service was perceived as an additional
activity aside from goods, an activity that is rather consuming and counterproductive [9,10]. However,
in the 21st century, when the paradigm of consumption shifted from materials to emotions and
experiences, the focus of the economy structure re-shifted to symbolic consumption and services that
met customers’ personal preferences and expectations [11]. This implies that the value of service was
extended to the entire consumer experience, including the provision of both material and non-material
goods to customers, not to mention the additional service activity accompanied by tangible goods.
This perception is based on the service-dominant logic proposed by Vargo [12]. According to this
logic, service value increases when customers accumulate positive experiences in regard to their
purchasing activity, as opposed to experiences relating to the functional aspects of the goods they
purchase. In addition, this logic is tied to the value-in-use meaning of value, which explains the lack
of distinct boundaries between service providers and receivers [13,14]. Thus, the company-customer
interface is created through the “use of goods”, not the “exchange of goods”. Customers, along with
providers, became co-creators of value, which in turn drives the eco-system of service production and
supply [15]. Table 1 presents a comparison of the two types of logic.
In recent years, with the proliferation of servitization in all industries, caused by the value of
services increasing as it becomes more difficult to differentiate the technical features of products
from those of other related products, there is a rapid emergence of Product-Service Systems (PSS)
that integrate tangible goods and intangible services [16]. PSS are defined as a marketable set of
products and services capable of jointly fulfilling customers’ needs in an economical and sustainable
manner [17–19]. Driven by the need for more effective and sustainable use of our planet’s resources,
research on PSS reveals a high potential of such systems to balance economic, social, and environmental
benefits [18–21]. For example, customers who are not regular car users may choose to use car-sharing
solutions rather than buying a car, which is both a sustainable and resource-efficient solution [22].
Such improvements tend to add uptime or total-care services, which could lead to the intensive use of
products and timely replacement with newer, more efficient, and innovative products [18,21]. Even the
latest environmental legislation pushes for manufacturers to take care of their product throughout its
life cycle, with particular concern for the disposal stages, in accordance with the well-known “polluter
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 3 of 15

pays principle”. From this perspective, activities such as maintenance, repair, and collection after use,
can be performed better by the OEM rather than by a third party. With a focus on customer demands
and needs, this is even the case for common products (e.g., household goods) [23].

Table 1. Comparison between service-dominant logic and goods-dominant logic.

Goods-Dominant Logic Service-Dominant Logic

- Value of tangible goods: value is created

- The product itself provides the value the
through the service that concerns the use of
customer desires
the goods
- Product manufacturing: an activity that helps
- Intangible asset: key for growth based
improve the national economic power
on productivity
- Customer as a co-producer
- Customer as a co-creator of value
- Provider-centered, focus on improving
- Emphasis on the significance of the service
productivity/efficiency
value created by the provider-user interface

H H
Service refers to additional or other activities aside from Service value is amplified when, from the customer’s
products, and is considered to be counterproductive point of view, service-user experience increases

2.2. Concept of Service Design

The quality and sustainability of service are affected by the loyalty and emotional connection it
develops with its users [10]. However, it is difficult to form emotional connections with users because
of the “delivery gap” that tends to appear between service providers’ intentions for their service and
users’ perceptions of the service experience. This gap originates from the complexities and perplexities
inherent in-service experience [10,24–26]. As service experience comprises multiple factors, including
particular circumstances, personal reactions, and the surrounding environment, it is difficult to identify
the root cause of a delivery gap. However, owing to the need to overcome problems and to design a
holistic user experience for the service-provision process, many choose to base their service design on
service-dominant logic [25] (see Figure 1).
Nowadays, service design is gradually being applied to many social issues and challenges [27,28].
Further, several studies [29–32] have discussed the application of service design in public service
innovation, such as in the British NHS (National Health Service) Medical System, the American Kaiser
Permanente, and the Japanese Emergency Medical System [14]. Moreover, as the economization of
services rapidly progresses, it is increasingly applied to all industries as a methodology for upgrading
services [33]. For example, in the field of academia, the definition of service design slightly differs
from that used in industry; nevertheless, commonalities can be found in the following areas: (1) it
follows a design-thinking process, which involves seeking alternatives through collecting and sharing
ideas; (2) it intensively analyzes the relationships between stakeholders and encourages them to make
interventions; (3) by employing a comprehensive research method, it visualizes the tangible and
intangible services that customers experience, and uses this to improve customers’ experience value.
Regarding service design-related activities, Table 2 shows the main characteristics of management
consulting and service design, while Table 3 presents the chief characteristics of product design and
service design. Here, it is notable that there is a paradox within the elements of the service design
property, as it states that service is “invisible” and “intangible”, yet “able to present visual results”.
Considering this, service design caould be defined as a holistic problem-solving journey that involves
interpreting intangible problems as visible phenomena and overcoming them.
Based on the aforementioned studies and definitions, the following could be considered the
distinctive characteristics of service design methodology: (1) the foundation is “design thinking”, which
is a creative problem-solving process [33–41]; (2) the ultimate goal is “user experience value” [11,42–45];
(3) the practical research method is “participatory design” [3,46]; and (4) the key research scope is “the
interface between users and providers” [47–49].
 visible phenomena and overcoming them.
Based on the aforementioned studies and definitions, the following could be considered the
distinctive characteristics of service design methodology: (1) the foundation is “design thinking”,
which is a creative problem-solving process [33–41]; (2) the ultimate goal is “user experience value”
[11,42–45]; (3) the practical research method is “participatory design” [3,46]; and (4) the key
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 4 of 15
research scope is “the interface between users and providers” [47–49].

Figure 1. Background of the emergence of service design (Source: Tukker and Tischner [50]).
Figure 1. Background of the emergence of service design (Source: Tukker and Tischner [50]).
Table 2. Comparison of the characteristics of management consulting and service design.
Table 2. Comparison of the characteristics of management consulting and service design.
Management Consulting Division Service Design
Management Consulting Division Service
Balance between Design
company and
Company-centered Focus
Company-centered Focus customers
Balance between company and customers
Obtaining a competitive edge through
Obtaining a competitive edgeselecting
through and Discovering customers’ potential
selecting and concentrating on business Point
Point of
of view Discovering customers’ desires
needs and stakeholders’ potential
/ needs and
concentrating on business resources and improving
resources and improving efficiency view stakeholders’ desires / Standardization
Standardization
efficiency
5Forces5Forces
Model Model (Porter,
(Porter, 1979)
1979) Customer observation, storyboard,
3C analysis (Ohmae, 2005)
3C analysis (Ohmae, 2005) Tools persona, customer
Customer journey
observation, map,
storyboard, persona,
BPR (Davenport, 1990) Tools
BPR (Davenport, 1990) service
customer blueprint,
journey map, etc.
service blueprint, etc.
6 Sigma (Harry, 1987)
6 SigmaLogical
(Harry, 1987)
Thinking Way of thinking Design Thinking
Way of
Logical
Report (need for Thinking
additional development to
Result
VisualizedDesign Thinking
report (instantly
conduct application) thinking applicable result)
Report (need for additional development to conduct
Result Visualized report (instantly applicable result)
application)
Table 3. Comparison of the characteristics of product design and service design.

Product Design Division Service Design

Possible to check visually Visibility Impossible to check visually
Users’ perspective (experience, usability) Perspective From the perspective of the user/provider/community
Physical goods, including products Target Broad range, including service/system/institution
Design that focuses on visual representation Expression method Design that focuses on emotional experience
Tangible Tangibility Intangible

3. Distinctive Nature of Service Design Methodology

3.1. Creative Problem-Solving Process: Design Thinking

There are conceptualizations of design thinking; for example, it has been defined as the “transfer
of the organization’s design philosophy into design activities and outputs” [51,52] or a set of formal
design methods necessary for finding, brainstorming, and prototyping [52,53]. These diverse
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 5 of 15

conceptualizations of design thinking still co-exist [52,54–57]; however, it is generally perceived

as a creative method of problem-solving. Buchanan [37] highlighted the usefulness of design thinking
for solving wicked problems, referring to it as a new way of thinking that could help advance human
sciences. Moreover, Dziersk [40] defined design thinking as a repeatable process employing unique
and creative techniques which yield guaranteed results, while Lockwood [58] argued that it provides
an entrepreneurial mindset and paradigm to people and organizations that engage in projects. Further,
Mager [33] described it as a creative problem-solving method that incorporates diverse aspects and
allows users to continually make improvements to company structures, strategies, and projects.
Aside from these views, design thinking has also been described as a tool that improves previous
methodologies through exploration and expression [59], and as a strategy for visualizing problems
and seeking timely solutions [39]. One of the most cited and precise definitions of design thinking is
given by Brown [35,36,60]: “Design thinking is a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and
methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business
strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity”.
In the field of educational practice, Androutsos and Brinia [34] asserted that design thinking “leads
students—through an artful and experiential way of thinking and doing—to be much more creative
and innovative” as well as “more responsible by allowing them . . . ownership of the creation process”.
Different elements of the application of design thinking are mentioned in the literature: mindset, team,
diversity, process, tools, and environment [35,36,41,53,59,61–66]. Brown [36] presented the following
three stages of design thinking methodology: inspiration, ideation, and implementation. In the style
of design thinking advocated by Stanford—which follows the order of empathizing, define, ideate,
prototype, and test—the testing and revising of ideas is repeated until an optimal result is derived,
which designers recognize by using their sensitivity and intuition, as well as various research tools.
In the marketing field, design thinking is perceived as a series of paradigms for improving
business. According to Martin [41], using design thinking as a strategic tool is the most suitable method
for business management, as it allows administrative minds and creative ideas to co-exist (see Figure 2).
Design thinking generates creative ideas by harmoniously converging logical and analytical thinking
with intuitive thinking, without manipulating the mind [38]. In addition, it outperforms the general
verification method because of its abductive reasoning that combines the merits of deductive and
inductive logic; moreover, it pre-establishes the inclusive inference concept that “it could be anything”
and looks for solutions through logical inference [41]. The reason for its good performance in this
regard is that new ideas or insight cannot be proven prior to the occurrence of a problem and can
only be justified after the actual occurrence (see Table 4). The design-thinking approach to problems
facilitates an accurate definition of the problem to be solved; in other words, it allows fundamental
access to problems. This is useful for deriving user-empathetic solutions in domains where a clear
identification of problems is difficult, which could be the case with complex social agendas.6 of 15
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Martin’s[67]
Martin’s [67] concept
concept of
ofdesign
designthinking.
thinking.

Table 4. Comparison between logical thinking and design thinking.

Logical Thinking Division Design Thinking

Hypothetical/Top-down Inference method Inductive/Bottom-up
Quantitative Research method Qualitative
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 6 of 15

Table 4. Comparison between logical thinking and design thinking.

Logical Thinking Division Design Thinking

Hypothetical/Top-down Inference method Inductive/Bottom-up
Quantitative Research method Qualitative
Data Analysis target Story
Information Derived result Insight
Popular (issue) Problem origin Fundamental (human)
Expertise Approach Empathy
Instruction End goal Innovation

3.2. Ultimate Goal: User Experience Value

In marketing and design, the experience is an important concept for understanding users. In “The
Entertainment Economy”, Wolf [68] stated that the age of tangible and physical products has shifted
to the age of entertainment experience and hands-on experience; additionally, Schmitt [69] asserted
that the highest criterion for customers to judge a certain brand is the level of satisfying experience
they receive in regard to the service, brand, and design in question [11]. Pine and Gilmore [70]
emphasized that companies should endeavor to provide unique user experiences by distributing
products and services that are differentiated from those of their competitors. Meanwhile, Hassenzahl
and Tractinsky [42] explained that user experience depends on users’ internal conditions, such as
their tendencies, expectations, motivations in a series of circumstances, and systems; in contrast,
experience in design concerns “value and satisfaction for users”. Shedroff [44] considered
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
users’
general experiences regarding consumption to comprise a sensory interface of thje product, system,
and service,
occurs, through
the user’swhich
emotiona person
instantly has experiences
changes onan
based on both physical
external and cognitive
stimulus, such as thelevels; further,
service
he alsoprovider’s
emphasized attitude, language type,
the importance or facial expressions;
of widening Russell [75]
users’ experiences described such
by providing themchanging
with optimal
emotions asNorman
environments. “circumflex [71]ofdescribed
emotions” user [76] (see Figure 5).asAccording
experience to him,
the ultimate the entire
value rangeto
provided of users,
subtle and mysterious emotional changes that a user experiences at various moments when
including all sensory processes that a user undergoes while using products and services. Therefore,
receiving a service appears to be complicated and unclear when the interface of the user and their
the interface between a user and his or her environment influences the user’s experience. Figure 3
environment is considered. This is the reason that service design is considered to have the
illustrates the concept
characteristics of userexperience
of “holistic experience in these
design”, two domains.
transcending customer experience design.

Figure
Figure 3. Comparison
3. Comparison betweenmarketing
between marketing and
anddesign
designinin
terms of user
terms experience.
of user experience.

User experience in service design refers to the emotional property of service created at user
touchpoints, which can be considered to represent the moment users encounter products outside of the
product environment [72,73]. Using a four-stage user experience model, Roto, Law, Vermeeren, and
Hoonhout [43] classified the characteristics of user experience over time as follows: anticipated user
experience, momentary user experience, episodic user experience, and cumulative user experience
(see Figure 4). Of these, the most important stage is “momentary user experience”, which manifests
in a collection of subtle changes in emotions at the moment a service is encountered [74]. Once
service experience is acquired, when the next momentary service experience occurs, the user’s emotion

Figure 4. Roto et al.’s four stages of user experience (2010, p. 8).

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 7 of 15

instantly changes based on an external stimulus, such as the service provider’s attitude, language type,
or facial expressions; Russell [75] described such changing emotions as “circumflex of emotions” [76]
(see Figure 5). According to him, the entire range of subtle and mysterious emotional changes that a
user experiences at various moments when receiving a service appears to be complicated and unclear
when the interface of the user and their environment is considered. This is the reason that service
design is considered to have the characteristics of “holistic experience design”, transcending customer
Figure 3. Comparison between marketing and design in terms of user experience.
experience design.Figure 3. Comparison between marketing and design in terms of user experience.

Figure 4. Roto
4. Roto et
et et al.’s fourstages
al.’s stages of user experience (2010, p. 8).
Figure
Figure 4. Roto al.’sfour of user
four stages of userexperience
experience (2010,
(2010, p. 8).
p. 8).

Figure 5. Service
5. Service design domains based
design based on users’ experience periods.
Figure
Figure 5. Service designdomains onusers’
domains based on users’ experience
experience periods.
periods.

3.3. Practical Research Method: Participatory Design

Participatory design includes research, projects, and systems in which users actively participate
during the service design process [77]. This participatory design is similar to Rittel’s [3] participatory
design process because it uses visual tools for problem-solving, and encourages democratic discussion
and collaboration based on multi-disciplinary collaboration and mutual understanding (see Figure 6).
The characteristics of service design, such as contextual and multi-disciplinary research and co-creation,
are based on this form of participatory design (see Figure 7); this is because service design requires a
flexible environment in order to adjust to spatial and temporal limitations, as well as to the unexpected
behaviors and opinions of stakeholders during the research process, where in-depth user observation
takes place. This participatory design is closely related to open innovation. According to Silva and
Leitao [78], innovation is not something intermittent that happens by chance, nor is it something
resulting from the action of a single agent. Kline and Rosenberg [79] insist that innovation is the result
of an interactive process between the firm and their surrounding environment. For Dahlander and
Gann [80], the interaction between organizations is fundamental, since no organization can innovate in
isolation and must connect with different partners in order to acquire ideas and resources from the
surrounding environment, namely, new ways to access talent, new results from intellectual property,
innovative technology to license or spread, or even new forms of collaboration on different geographical
 closely related to open innovation. According to Silva and Leitao [78], innovation is not something
intermittent that happens by chance, nor is it something resulting from the action of a single agent.
Kline and Rosenberg [79] insist that innovation is the result of an interactive process between the
firm and their surrounding environment. For Dahlander and Gann [80], the interaction between
organizations is fundamental, since no organization can innovate in isolation and must connect
with Technol.
J. Open Innov. differentMark.
partners in order
Complex. to78
2019, 5, acquire ideas and resources from the surrounding environment, 8 of 15
namely, new ways to access talent, new results from intellectual property, innovative technology to
license or spread, or even new forms of collaboration on different geographical bases [81]. These
bases [81].
viewsThese viewson
are based arethe
based
fact on
thatthe fact innovation
open that open innovation takes place
takes place when variouswhen various
factors in thefactors
environment, including
in the environment, including users as well
users as stakeholders,
as well are actively
as stakeholders, involvedinvolved
are actively in the problem. In
in the problem.
addition, it explains the close relationship between participatory design and
In addition, it explains the close relationship between participatory design and open innovation.open innovation.
In theIncontext
the context of open innovation, Leitão [81] presents a business model entitled: Open
of open innovation, Leitão [81] presents a business model entitled: Open
innovation bridge-Tangram model, the ultimate goal of which is to renew business innovation
innovation bridge-Tangram model, the ultimate goal of which is to renew business innovation
capacity. This business model consists of internal factors (A1), linking factors (A2), internal R&D
capacity. This business
activities model
(B3), external R&Dconsists of internal
activities factorscompetition
(B4), strategic (A1), linking factors
(C5), critical(A2), internal
elements of R&D
activities (B3), external R&D activities (B4), strategic competition (C5), critical elements
transactional structure (D6), and business innovation capacity (E7). The Tangram model identifies of transactional
structurethe (D6),
criticaland business
elements of theinnovation capacityof(E7).
transitive structure open The Tangram
innovation model
business identifies
models. Hence,thethiscritical
elements study willtransitive
of the consider structure
the resources of this
of open model in business
innovation the problem-solving
models. Hence, service
thisdesign
studyplatform
will consider
model. of this model in the problem-solving service design platform model.
the resources
FigureFigure
8 shows 8 shows an example
an example of a of a participatory
participatory designproject
design projectcalled project [RED]
called project [RED][46],
[46],which
which was
was an endeavor to create a public service project in the UK. In summary, “participation”
an endeavor to create a public service project in the UK. In summary, “participation” in problem-solving in
problem-solving is related to user value. In particular, participatory design in service design is an
is related to user value. In particular, participatory design in service design is an activity that creates
activity that creates mutually shared value, as it involves collaborations with experts and
mutually shared value,
stakeholders as it involves
that transcend collaborations
the active participation with experts
of users. and
In other stakeholders
words, thatadvanced
it is the most transcend the
active participation of users. In other words, it is the most advanced form of problem-solving
form of problem-solving for users, in that users do not stop attempting to solve the problem once for users,
in that they
users
aredo not stop
satisfied withattempting to service,
the unilateral solve the butproblem
instead tryonce they are
to discover thesatisfied
essence ofwith the unilateral
the problem
service,bybut
analyzing
insteadthetryinternal movement.
to discover the essence of the problem by analyzing the internal movement.

J. J.Open
OpenInnov.
Figure 6.Technol.
Figure
Innov. Mark.
Mark.Complex.
6. Comparison
Comparison
Technol. 2019,
between
Complex. 2019,5,participatory
between 5,x participatory
xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
design and
design
REVIEW andRittel’s
Rittel’sparticipatory design
participatory process.
design 9 9ofof1515
process.

Figure 7. Concept of participatory research in service design.

Figure 7. Concept
Figure 7. Concept ofofparticipatory
participatory research
researchinin
service design.
service design.

Figure
Figure 8.8.Example
8. Example
Figure of of
Example ofuser
user participation
participationin
participation
user ininproject
project[RED],
project a apublic
[RED],
[RED], service
apublic
public project
service
service ininthe
project
project theUK.
inUK.
the UK.

3.4.
3.4.Scope
ScopeofofKey
KeyResearch:
Research:Interaction
Interactionbetween
betweenUsers
Usersand
andProviders
Providers
Service
Servicedesign
designconcerns
concernsall
allservice-related
service-relatedphenomena
phenomenathatthatinvolve
involveinteractions
interactionsbetween
betweenusers,
users,
providers,
providers, and stakeholders within the service domain. Therefore, subtle changes in emotionsthat
and stakeholders within the service domain. Therefore, subtle changes in emotions that
occur
occurwhile
whileproviding
providingservices
servicesarearealso
alsoa aresearch
researchtarget.
target.This
Thisisisbecause
becauseemotional
emotionalfeedback
feedback
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 9 of 15

3.4. Scope of Key Research: Interaction between Users and Providers

Service design concerns all service-related phenomena that involve interactions between users,
providers, and stakeholders within the service domain. Therefore, subtle changes in emotions that
occur while providing services are also a research target. This is because emotional feedback between
users, providers, and stakeholders over numerous touchpoints could influence the quality of the
service and eventually determines the user experience value [49] (see Figure 9). Bitner [47] described
the interface between service users and providers as the main criterion for service evaluation. Further,
after considering the action of implementing service within service environments, Bitner, Ostrom, and
Morgan [82] classified service into self-service, interpersonal service, and remote service. In addition,
Chang [48] stated that exchanges within holistic service systems occur in two ways: between the service
user and the provider, and between the service environment and service experience. At this point in the
process, the service provider implements the service-delivery process, while the service environment
utilizes products, tools, techniques, physical locations, etc. as mediums of mutual exchange. Users
evaluate the quality of service and the level of satisfaction by considering the service process and the
physical environment provided by the service providers; thus, the interface between the service user
and provider
J. Open Innov.isTechnol.
a keyMark.
research area
Complex. 2019,in
5, xthat
FOR it influences
PEER REVIEW users’ holistic service experience value.
10 of 15

Figure
Figure 9. Interactionbetween
9. Interaction between user
user and
andprovider
provideratat
service-user touchpoint.
service-user touchpoint.

4. Characteristics of the
4. Characteristics Service
of the ServiceDesign
DesignProcess
Process
MostMost
problems addressed
problems addressedthrough
throughservice designrelate
service design relatetotothe
the domains
domains in which
in which the subjective
the subjective
perceptions of humans
perceptions intervene
of humans to ato
intervene significant
a significantdegree.
degree.Thus, thethe
Thus, processes
processes established
established byby
thethe
design
design industry and academia slightly differ from each other. However, there
industry and academia slightly differ from each other. However, there is some commonality, in that is some commonality,
user in that user experience
experience is improved is through
improvedathrough
repeatable a repeatable
process of process of collecting
collecting and dispersing
and dispersing ideas
ideas depending
depending on circumstance. Table 5 shows a list of the main processes that could be summarized
on circumstance. Table 5 shows a list of the main processes that could be summarized into three
into three steps: (1) careful observation of user experience; (2) visual design of services; and (3)
steps: (1) careful observation of user experience; (2) visual design of services; and (3) presentation of
presentation of service components and models (see Figure 10). Step 1 entails interviewing
service components and models (see Figure 10). Step 1 entails interviewing stakeholders and analyzing
stakeholders and analyzing the service-delivery environment and process to establish the goal of
the service-delivery
the project; Step 2environment and process
concerns understanding the to
flowestablish the goal
of customer serviceofatthe
eachproject;
serviceStep 2 concerns
touchpoint
understanding
and developing related ideas; and Step 3 involves developing the discovered idea into an actualideas;
the flow of customer service at each service touchpoint and developing related
and Step 3 involves
prototype developing
and completing the discovered
a final manual. The idea into an actual
significance of thisprototype
process lies andin completing
developing a final
system
manual. Thethat is beneficial
significance ofto user
this experience
process lies inrather than focusing
developing a systemon determining the value
that is beneficial of goods.
to user experience
Inthan
rather otherfocusing
words, onthedetermining
service design the process
value ofisgoods.
a continuous
In other effective
words, the record
servicethatdesign
buildsprocess
on is
“momentary user experience” and entails a process of transforming perception
a continuous effective record that builds on “momentary user experience” and entails a process of and behavior into
solutions to problems. On the one hand, the analysis of the process of PPS development was carried
transforming perception and behavior into solutions to problems. On the one hand, the analysis of the
out considering the four-phase conventional design process proposed by Hubka and Eder [83] and
process of PPS development was carried out considering the four-phase conventional design process
Pahl and Beitz [84] as a reference scheme and, as shown Table 5, consisting of the following phases:
proposed by Hubka and Eder [83] and Pahl and Beitz [84] as a reference scheme and, as shown Table 5,
Ideation and Task Analysis, Conceptual Design, Embodiment Design, and Validation and Release
[85].

Table 5. Comparison of the major service design and PPS (Product-Service Systems) design model
processes.

Division Model (Company) STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5

Assistance for Service
Business Service design
British Standards providing operation and
development development
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 10 of 15

consisting of the following phases: Ideation and Task Analysis, Conceptual Design, Embodiment
Design, and Validation and Release [85].

Table 5. Comparison of the major service design and PPS (Product-Service Systems) design
model processes.
Division Model (Company) STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
Service Assistance for Service
Business
British Standards design providing operation and
development
development service optimization
Design Council Discover Define Develop Delivery
Live Work Insight Ideas Prototype Delivery Specifying
Engine Identify Build Measure
Author IDEO Observation Brainstorming Rapid Prototype Refinement Implementation
summary
Design Thinkers Discovering Conceptualizing Designing Building Implementing
Spirit of Creation Discovery Generation Synthesis Enterprise
Framework for PSS design for Conceptual Validation &
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.
manufacturing 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEWdesign
firms release 11 of 15
Innovative product advanced service Embodiment Validation &
systems framework
Customization design release
framework for road-
Customization framework for Embodiment
Embodiment Validation
Validation&&
mapping PS PS integration
road-mapping design
design release
release
integration
Business model design methodology Conceptual Embodiment Validation &
Business model
for innovative PSSs design design release&
Conceptual Embodiment Validation
design methodology
design
Conceptual design release &
Validation
for innovative
Systematic designPSSs
framework for PSS
design release
Systematic design Conceptual Validation &
framework for PSS design Embodiment release
Methodology for PSS development
Methodology for PSS design
Embodiment
development Conceptual design
Embodiment Validation &
Haber & Canvas business model framework
Canvas business Conceptual
design Embodiment
design Validation
release&
Haber &
Fargnoli, model framework design design release
Fargnoli, Conceptual
Practical design
Practical design framework Conceptual
2017
2017[85]
[85] design
framework design
Generic competitive process Conceptual Validation &
Generic competitive Conceptual Validation &
framework design release
process framework design release
PSSPSS design
design exploration process Validation &&
Validation
exploration process release
release
Kansei engineered Conceptual Embodiment
Conceptual Embodiment Validation&&
Validation
Kansei engineered PSS model
PSS model design design design
design release
release
Flexible PSS design Conceptual
Conceptual Validation
Validation&&
Flexible PSS design framework
framework design design release
release
Validation
Validation&&
Integrated PSS model
Integrated PSS model release
release

Figure 10. Basic structure of the service design process and its implications.
Figure 10. Basic structure of the service design process and its implications.

5. Proposal of the Problem-Solving Service Design Platform Model

A problem-solving service design platform can be proposed based on the distinctive nature of
service design methodology, as Figure 11 shows. This model comprises the following six steps:
identifying a problem (Recognize), understanding the problem (Discover), deducing the problem
(Deduce), defining the problem (Define), solving the problem (Develop), and testing the problem-
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 11 of 15

5. Proposal of the Problem-Solving Service Design Platform Model

A problem-solving service design platform can be proposed based on the distinctive nature
of service design methodology, as Figure 11 shows. This model comprises the following six steps:
identifying a problem (Recognize), understanding the problem (Discover), deducing the problem
(Deduce), defining the problem (Define), solving the problem (Develop), and testing the problem-solving
strategy (Deliver). First, the “Recognize” step entails self-realization concerning dissatisfaction and
the decrease in the quality of user experience. Second, the “Discover” step involves collaborative and
contextual research. Third, the “Deduce” step comprises the discovery of unmet desires by visualizing
the current problems. Fourth, the “Define” step encourages creative insight through analysis. Fifth,
the “Develop” step consists of designing a service model that reflects the previous findings. Finally,
the “Deliver” step checks the feasibility of applying the solution in real-life by analyzing the feedback
obtained from the prototype. These steps are associated with the stages of the Tangram model; the steps
of “Recognize” and “Discover” could be identified by internal factors and linking factors. The next
steps, “Deduce” and “Define”, could be accomplished through internal R&D activities and strategic
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15
competition. The final stages, “Develop” and “Deliver” can be completed with critical elements of
transactional
touchpoint takes structure
placeand business
at the touchpointinnovation
of ‘usercapacity. Thevalue’
experience recognition of the problem
and ‘participatory regarding
design.’ Next,
customer
a human-centered problem approach is implemented at the touchpoint of ‘participatory design’and
experience and service touchpoint takes place at the touchpoint of ‘user experience value’ and
‘participatory
‘interaction design.’
betweenNext, usersa human-centered
and providers.’problem Lastly, approach is implemented
stakeholders’ benefits atarethecreated
touchpoint of
at the
‘participatory design’ and ‘interaction between users and providers.’ Lastly, stakeholders’
touchpoint of ‘user-provider interface’ and ‘user experience value.’ When these processes are benefits are
created at the touchpoint
successfully implemented, of ‘user-provider
participants can interface’ and ‘user
understand theexperience value.’ When
problem-solving these
strategy, processes
validate the
are successfully
usefulness implemented,
of service design, participants
and grow tocan understand
trust the problem-solving
this methodology, resulting instrategy, validate the
an improvement in
usefulness of service design, and grow to trust this methodology,
the user experience value, which is the ultimate goal of the project. resulting in an improvement in the
user experience value, which is the ultimate goal of the project.

Figure 11. Problem-solving service design platform model: Three-dimensional drawing.

Figure 11. Problem-solving service design platform model: Three-dimensional drawing.
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
The goal of utilizing service design originates from diverse environments and backgrounds, such
as theThe goal of
process ofproducing
utilizing service
goods, design originates
organization from diverse
structure, environments
the re-designing of theand backgrounds,
industry system,
such as the process of producing goods, organization structure, the re-designing
and the improvement of public service. However, the primary goal essentially relates to of the
theindustry
use of
system,
the and the improvement
human-centered of public
problem-solving service. However,
methodology the primary
to improve the usergoal essentially
experience relates
value basedto on
the
use of the human-centered problem-solving methodology to improve the user
design thinking. Through this process, a service designer proposes an optimal solution, designingexperience value
basedalternatives
visual on design thinking.
for obscureThrough thisand
problems, process, a service
encouraging designer proposes
participants’ an optimal
interventions. Servicesolution,
design
isdesigning
therefore visual
useful alternatives
to the aspectfor
of obscure
human valueproblems,
beyond andtheencouraging
perspectiveparticipants’ interventions.
of business innovation or
Service design is therefore useful to the aspect of human value beyond the perspective
economic usefulness. The present study is limited in that it examined previous studies to investigate of business
innovation or economic usefulness. The present study is limited in that it examined previous
studies to investigate the essential characteristics of service design and methodological
distinctiveness. Nevertheless, it is significant in its identification of the characteristics of service
design that are distinctive from other designs. It went beyond establishing the concept of service
design to develop a design platform for problem-solving. A follow-up study will examine the
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 12 of 15

the essential characteristics of service design and methodological distinctiveness. Nevertheless, it is

significant in its identification of the characteristics of service design that are distinctive from other
designs. It went beyond establishing the concept of service design to develop a design platform
for problem-solving. A follow-up study will examine the usefulness of the proposed service design
platform model by applying it to an actual project. The successful confirmation of the usefulness of
this model will have positive implications for the field of service design.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mandano Partnership. Scoping Study on Service Design; Design Council: London, UK; Art & Humanity
Research Council: Swindon, UK; Economic & Social Research Council: Swindon, UK, 2012.
2. Service Design Network. Available online: http://www.service-design-network.org/ (accessed on 25 February 2019).
3. Rittel, H.W.J. On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the First and Second Generations; Institute of Urban
and Regional Development: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1972.
4. Meroni, A.; Sangiorgi, D. Design for Services; Gower Publishing Limited: Surrey, UK, 2011.
5. Service. In Oxford Dictionaries Online. Available online: https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
service (accessed on 10 February 2019).
6. Michel, S.; Brown, S.W.; Gallan, A.S. An expanded and strategic view of discontinuous innovations:
Deploying a service-dominant logic. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 54–66. [CrossRef]
7. Maglio, P.P.; Spohrer, J. Fundamentals of Service Science. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 18–20. [CrossRef]
8. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
9. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Why “service”? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 25–38. [CrossRef]
10. Jeon, Y.O. The Development of Service Design Framework for the Innovation of Korea’s Social Problems.
Ph.D. Thesis, Hongik University, Seoul, Korea, 2016, unpublished work.
11. Yoon, S.G. Concept and Application of Experience Design: Focusing on Offline Environment Usage. Master’s
Thesis, Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan, Korea, 2003, unpublished work.
12. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a new service-dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 1–17.
[CrossRef]
13. Vargo, S.L.; Maglio, P.P.; Akaka, M.A. On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic
perspective. Eur. Manag. J. 2008, 26, 145–152. [CrossRef]
14. Yang, C.F.; Sung, T.J. Service design for social innovation through participatory action research. Int. J. Des.
2016, 10, 21–36.
15. Alade, A. Engaging Stakeholders in the Designing of a Service: A Case Study in the B2B Service Context.
Master’s Thesis, Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Vantaa, Finland, 2013, unpublished work.
16. Kim, K.J.; Hong, H.S.; Park, K.T.; Lim, C.H.; Heo, J.Y.; Kang, C.M.; Baek, M.J.; Park, G.Y. Product-service
system: Current status and research issues. J. Korean Inst. Ind. Eng. 2011, 37. [CrossRef]
17. Goedkoop, M.J.; van Halen, C.J.G.; te Riele, H.R.M.; Rommens, P.J.M. Product Service Systems, Ecological and
Economic Basics; Report No. 1999/36; Dutch Ministries of Environment (VROM): The Hague, The Netherland;
Dutch Ministries of Economic Affairs (EZ): The Hague, The Netherland, 1999.
18. Reim, W.; Parida, V.; Ortqvist, D. Product-Service Systems (PSS) business models and tactics—A systematic
literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 97, 61–75. [CrossRef]
19. Tukker, A. Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet.
Bus. Strategy Environ. 2004, 13, 246–260. [CrossRef]
20. Mont, O. Institutionalization of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 50,
135–153. [CrossRef]
21. Sundin, E.; Bras, B. Making functional sales environmentally and economically beneficial through product
remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 913–925. [CrossRef]
22. Kriston, A.; Szabo, T.; Inzelt, G. The marriage of car sharing and hydrogen economy: A possible solution to
the main problems of urban living. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 12697–12708. [CrossRef]
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 13 of 15

23. Fargnoli, M.; De Minicis, M.; Tronci, M. Product’s life cycle modelling for eco-designing product-service
systems. In Proceedings of the 12th International Design Conference—DESIGN 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia,
21–24 May 2012; pp. 869–878.
24. Allen, J.; Reichheld, F.F.; Hamilton, B.; Markey, R. Closing the Delivery Gap: How to Achieve True
Customer-Led Growth. 2005. Available online: http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/closing-the-
delivery-gap-newsletter.aspx (accessed on 30 October 2017).
25. Kim, S.S. Study of Service Experience Analysis System Based on Holism: Focusing on Customer Service
within Physical Space. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Handong Global University, Pohang City, Korea,
2012, unpublished work.
26. Kim, S.S.; Lee, E.J. A study of holism based service experience analysis system. J. Ergon. Soc. Korea 2012, 31,
49–61. [CrossRef]
27. European Commission. Challenges for EU Support to Innovation in Services; Publications Office of the European
Union: Luxembourg, 2009.
28. Sangiorgi, D. Transformative services and transformation design. Int. J. Des. 2011, 5, 29–40.
29. Bradwell, P.; Marr, S. Making the Most of Collaboration: An International Survey of Public Service Co-Design;
Demos: London, UK, 2008.
30. Cottam, H.; Leadbeater, C. RED Paper 01: Health: Co-Creating Services; Design Council: London, UK, 2004.
31. Parker, S.; Heapy, J. The Journey to the Interface. How Public Service Design Can Connect Users to Reform; Demos:
London, UK, 2006.
32. Tanigawa, K.; Tanaka, K. Emergency medical service systems in Japan: Past, present, and future. Resuscitation
2006, 69, 365–370. [CrossRef]
33. Mager, B. Service Design as an Emerging Field. In Designing Services with Innovative Methods; Miettinen, S.,
Koivisto, M., Eds.; Savonia University of Applied Sciences: Helsinki, Finland, 2009; pp. 28–43.
34. Androutsos, A.; Brinia, V. Developing and piloting a pedagogy for teaching innovation, collaboration, and
co-creation in secondary education based on design thinking, digital transformation, and entrepreneurship.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 113. [CrossRef]
35. Brown, T. Design Thinking. 2008. Available online: http://designthinking.ideo.com (accessed on
24 August 2016).
36. Brown, T. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation; Harper
Business: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
37. Buchanan, R. Wicked problems in design thinking. Des. Issues 1992, 8, 5–21. [CrossRef]
38. Cheong, J.H.; Chang, D.R. Creativity expression based on design thinking in horizontal organization structure.
J. Korean Soc. Des. Sci. 2012, 101, 219–230.
39. Design Council. Design for Public Good. 2013. Available online: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/
report/design-public-good (accessed on 30 October 2017).
40. Dziersk, M. Design thinking, what is that? 2006. Available online: https://www.fastcompany.com/919258/
design-thinking-what (accessed on 30 October 2017).
41. Martin, R.L. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage; Harvard Business
School Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009.
42. Hassenzahl, M.; Tractinsky, N. User experience: A research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2006, 25, 91–97.
[CrossRef]
43. Roto, V.; Law, E.; Vermeeren, A.; Hoonhout, J. User experience white paper: Bringing clarity to the concept
of user experience. 2017. Available online: http://www.allaboutux.org/files/UX-WhitePaper.pdf (accessed on
30 October 2017).
44. Shedroff, N. Experience Design; New Riders: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2001.
45. Shon, J.R.; Nah, G. Meta-analysis of studies on experience from design perspective. J. Korean Soc. Des. Cult.
2008, 14, 246–258.
46. RED. Available online: https://red.org/what-is-red/ (accessed on 22 November 2017).
47. Bitner, M.J. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. J. Mark. 1992,
56, 57–71. [CrossRef]
48. Chang, J.J. Study of Service Experience Evaluation Method Based on Usability Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis,
Kookmin University Graduate School of Technical Design, Seoul, Korea, 2012, unpublished work.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 14 of 15

49. Polaine, P.; Lovlie, L.; Reason, B. Service Design: From Insight to Implementation; Rosenfeld Media: New York,
NY, USA, 2013.
50. Tukker, A.; Tischner, U. New Business for Old Europe: Product-Service Development, Competitiveness and
Sustainability; Greenleaf Publishing: Austin, TX, USA, 2006.
51. Chen, S.; Venkatesh, A. An investigation of how design-oriented organisations implement design thinking.
J. Mark. Manag. 2013, 29, 1680–1700. [CrossRef]
52. Kleinsmann, M.; Valkenburg, R.; Sluijs, J. Capturing the value of design thinking in different innovation
practices. Int. J. Des. 2017, 11, 25–40.
53. Seidel, P.; Fixson, K. Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits
of design methods and reflexive practices. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 19–33. [CrossRef]
54. Blizzard, J.; Klotz, L.; Potvin, G.; Hazari, Z.; Cribbs, J.; Godwin, A. Using survey questions to identify and
learn more about those who exhibit design thinking traits. Des. Stud. 2015, 38, 92–110. [CrossRef]
55. Cross, N. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work; Berg: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
56. Dorst, K. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des. Stud. 2011, 32, 521–532. [CrossRef]
57. Roozenburg, N.F.; Eekels, J. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1995; Volume 2.
58. Lockwood, T. Design Thinking; Allworth Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
59. Mootee, I. Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation: What They Can’t Teach you at Business or Design School;
Wiley, 2013. Available online: https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/design-thinking-for-strategic-innovation
(accessed on 17 December 2017).
60. Gobble, M. Design thinking. Res. Technol. Manag. 2014, 57, 59–62.
61. Brown, T.; Wyatt, J. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 2010, Winter, 31–35.
[CrossRef]
62. Collins, H. Can design thinking still add value? Des. Manag. Rev. 2013, 24, 35–39. [CrossRef]
63. Cross, N. Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Des. Issues 2001, 17, 49–55.
[CrossRef]
64. Simon, E. Design Thinking in the Automotive Industry. Creativity and Innovation; Anchor Academic: Hamburg,
Germany, 2016.
65. Simon, N.W.; Montgomery, K.S.; Beas, B.S.; Mitchell, M.R.; LaSarge, C.L.; Mendez, I.A.; Setlow, B.
Dopaminergic modulation of risky decision-making. J. Neurosci. 2011, 31, 17460–17470. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
66. Van Aken, J.E. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested
and grounded technological rules. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41, 219–246. [CrossRef]
67. Martin, R.L. Design Thinking; Translated by Lee, G.S.; Woongjin Wings: Seoul, Korea, 2010.
68. Wolf, M. The Entertainment Economy: How Mega-Media Forces Are Transforming Our Lives; Times Books/Random
House: New York, NY, 1999.
69. Schmitt, B. Experiential Marketing. J. Mark. Manag. 1999, 15, 53–67. [CrossRef]
70. Pine, J.; Gilmore, H. Welcome to the experience economy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 97–105.
71. Norman, D.; Nielsen, J. The Definition of User Experience. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/
definition-user-experience/ (accessed on 30 October 2017).
72. Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Korea Institute of Design Promotion. Trend and Policy Direction of Service
Design; KIDP: Seoul, Korea, 2013; Available online: https://www.slideshare.net/sdnight/2010-ki (accessed on
12 June 2016).
73. Korea Institute of Design Promotion. Service Design: Redesigning Service Industry. 2015. Available online:
https://www.slideshare.net/usableweb/201301-s (accessed on 11 October 2016).
74. Kim, Y.J. Experience-Based Pedagogy Design Model Using Service Design Tool. Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate
School of Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2015, unpublished work.
75. Russell, J. A circumflex model of affect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 39, 1161–1178. [CrossRef]
76. Park, S.H. Proposal of SFAT Process Based on Experiential Design Thinking for Service Industry Innovation.
Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate School of Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea, 2012, unpublished work.
77. Jensen, B. The Role of the Artefact in Participatory Design Research. 2004. Available online: http:
//nordcode.tkk.fi/lyngbypapers/nc3_jensen.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2017).
78. Silva, M.; Leitao, J. Cooperation in Innovation Practices among Firms in Portugal: Do External Partners
Stimulate Innovative Advances? Int. J. of Entrep. Small Bus 2009, 7, 391–403. [CrossRef]
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 78 15 of 15

79. Kline, S.; Rosenberg, N. An Overview of Innovation. In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for
Economic Growth; Landau, R., Rosenberg, N., Eds.; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA,
1986; pp. 275–306.
80. Dahlander, L.; Gann, D. How open is innovation? Res. Policy 2010, 39, 699–709. [CrossRef]
81. Leitão, J. Open Innovation Business Modeling: Gamification and Design Thinking Applications; Springer
International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019.
82. Bitner, M.J.; Ostrom, A.L.; Morgan, F.N. Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation.
Calif. Manag. Rev. 2008, 50, 66–94. [CrossRef]
83. Hubka, V.; Eder, E. Engineering Design, 2nd ed.; Butterworth Scientific: London, UK, 1992.
84. Pahl, G.; Beitz, W. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach; Springer Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
85. Haber, N.; Fargnoli, M. Design for product-service systems: A procedure to enhance functional integration
of product-service offerings. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 2017, 22, 135–164. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).